Curse of the Cat People
The ghost of Irena Dubrovna comes back from the dead in order to be a playmate to a dull child. Well, isn’t that ducky. I’d prefer Hell.
Comments:
By
now, you should be aware of my problems with Val Lewton. I’m sorry, but I find
his films dry and draining. That being said, you may be surprised to learn that I hold one of his
productions in very high regard. ‘Cat People’ has always been cool in my eyes.
It was creepy, sexy, and very engrossing. All the more reason this indulgent
mess pisses me off.
For all his high-fallutin’ pretensions, few would claim that Lewton chose his titles to appeal to the literati who so abjectly worship his piffle. (Oh, sure, blame it on the distributor!) Instead these films were put forth bearing monikers which one hoped would such a few ducats out of Billy Lunchpail’s pockets. Lewton's films constantly suggested blood and thunder, delivering sap and dross. In this case, ‘Curse of the Cat People‘ contains no curse and even less of the titular shape-shifters. I’ve heard enough about Lewton’s genius, and I’m g*ddamn sick of it! I don’t give a fig what any artsy nit says, the title of this film is blatant and slimy false advertising.
‘Curse’ is certainly not horror, and not even a proper sequel to the film it purports to build upon. Though the very talented Simone Simon returns as Irena, the bland washed out character here bears as little resemblance to the original article as Anne Ramsey does to Angelina Jolie. Kent Smith and Jane Randolph return as Irena’s betrayers, Oliver and Alice Reed. Authentically, the characters are as unlikable as they were in the original film. Ollie as a father, is even a bigger failure than as a husband. He ignores and neglects his daughter Amy (the very talented Ann Carter ) so much she is forced to withdraw into her own socially retarded little world.
Whether the
film can be claimed as a peon to childhood fantasy (or such goo) or must
be taken as a literal ghost story is up for debate. Oliver‘s child never met
Irene, yet perceives her perfectly in every detail. However, the child may have
seen a photo of her. This helps to cement the film’s utter pointlessness. Did
you think that Irena‘s appearance lacked reason? Then it was all an illusion!
(Whoosh! Sound of pixies farting.) Did you think that the movie is then
meaningless and manipulative? Then maybe she really was there! (Ohhhhhhh! Heavy
man! ) It’s just a copout. Since this film has the narrative conviction of a
bowl of room-temperature Maypo, I’ll go out on the limb it trembled like a
little French girl at. I believe Irena’s spirit was actually conversing with the
child. So why is she here? Her motives are completely benign, further proof that
the title of this film was just a damn hustle. (The most selfish aspersion one
could cast on the poor woman is that she sees herself as Amy’s mother, having
been robbed of any future children of her own.) I for one, being a complete and
total bastard, would have enjoyed a wee bit of a revenge element. (This woman
was drawn from her cocoon of self-reliance by a callow twat, only to have him
sexually betray her, leave her for another woman, and drive her to suicide. I’m
not sure of the first thing I would do if I found a way to communicate with
their adulterous drop, but it would involve convincing it in some way to start a
fire. What’s the point of becoming an undead specter if you’re just going to be
sweet and forgiving? Talk about wasted
effort.)
As this film was directed by the late Robert Wise, no one could ever claim that it wasn’t brilliantly crafted. The acting is spot on, and one scene near the end (Amy’s flight from a homicidal woman) is actually rather chilling. This doesn’t save it from being a disposable melodrama with no point.
Why? Oh sweet Sekhmet, why? Why follow up the only genuinely good Lewton horror movie with a dumb kid’s fantasy, rather than a real sequel? Por que?
1.5